Nancy Lesko's "Denaturalizig Adolescence: The Politics of Contemporary Representations"

Nancy Lesko argues against the conceptualization of adolescents and the naturalization of adolescence. The definition of adolescence is between the ages of 12 to 17 and is “naturally occurring nature” that are different from those of adults and children. Adolescent behaviors are assumed to be driven by hormones and therefore, the real sources of these behaviors are overlooked. By concluding that these behaviors are simply natural and incomprehensible, it is a given that adolescents need adult supervision. However, Lesko explores a different perspective about puberty as a “lived body” that makes mind and experience distinct from the physical body.

                Lesko first examines phrases used to describe adolescence such as “coming of age” and “at the threshold”. These phrases are rather “homiletic” expressions purposely at use to convince the public that age is not only important but also absolute. Hence, it masses teenagers into a single criterion of age.

                Lesko mentions Feminist critiques of research on hormones to challenge the scientific evidences that support the conceptualization of adolescence. They criticize the paradigm in which people are driven ultimately by biological factors. The scientific knowledge in the conceptualization of adolescents argues that adolescents need to be controlled by adults because the hormonal changes in puberty are assumed to be disruptive. The result of the public acceptance of this paradigm is the current structure of the school curriculum, in which, adolescents, who are assumed to be driven by disruptive hormones, are deprived of serious tasks and responsibilities.

                Another accepted assumption that is created by politics or in other words, “confident characterization” is that adolescents are peer-oriented, which also proves that they are irresponsible. Still influenced by the conceptualization of adolescents in 1800’s, the favorable outcome from adolescence is that of 1800’s – “White, middle-class, male norm of individual autonomy”. This creates the need for adult control over adolescents and overlooks the possible sources of peer-orientation like, the division of adolescents by age. With the diminished contacts with different age groups, adolescents have no choice but to be dependent on their peers and thus become peer-oriented. Yet, adolescence is defined with peer-orientation in sciences, schools and popular culture. The assumption that adolescence is natural and is driven by hormones impacts social practices and scientific discourses. Nancy Lesko believes that this assumption makes controlling adolescence the highest priority and legitimizes dumbing down the curriculum. Only adolescents who are respectful of deadlines and instructions of the adults are given little freedom and responsibility. The purpose of this article is therefore, to illustrate how education and social scientists contribute to the construction of adolescents as natural and problematic.

Criticizng Stanley's Article: Whose Public? Whos Memory? Racisms. Grand Narratves and Canadian History

History is a discipline fraught with controversy, in which, only one historical perspective of a past event is able to establish itself in the “grand narrative”. A grand narrative is the result of historical controversy. In the attempt to make history favorable to certain groups of a nation or even to manipulate its public, numerous historical perspectives have disappeared into one perspective and it is then established in a nation’s public memory. Especially in Canada, a nation of a very heterogeneous population, this creates racialized groups, “the imagined community” that simultaneously exclude and include groups of people. In his 2006 article, Whose Public? Whose Memory? Racisms. Grand Narratives and Canadian History, Timothy Stanley examines the forces that create and inform Canadian public memory and the consequent impact on the development of 21^st century Canada. Interestingly, the problem that he raises in his article is often denied by Canadians. Hence, in his article, Stanley attempts to prove that, racism in Canadian history exists and has a negative impact on Canadian society but it is obscured by “public memory’s reliance on grand narrative”.[i] He supports this claim by exposing the exclusions that result from problematic and yet subtle assumptions of grand narrative, multicultural add-ons and the “inability of grand narrative frameworks to give an adequate account of racism”^.[ii] Stanley’s arguments are generally logical and many of his examples sufficiently support them. However, there are limitations and gaps in some of his examples and his arguments provoke a serious question.

            In order to prove the subtle existence of racism in Canadian history and its consequences, Stanley describes the problematic assumptions of grand narrative using primary sources of evidence. The first primary evidence that Stanley uses is the 2001 Dominion Institute/Ipsos-Ried Canada Day survey, in which, trivial questions such as identifying the first Prime Minister of Canada. The expected and the correct answer to these questions prove that Canadian history is euro-centric and thus, circumscribed because they are correct only under the assumptions created by grand narrative that Canada is a “naturally occurring and unquestioned category” than “an actual state called ‘Canada’”.[iii]  In other words, the “beginnings” of Canadian history is not marked by the firsts of the wide range of groups in Canada but by the firsts that predates Canada – the European progression. This evidence develops his points sufficiently by first illustrating how Canadian history, or the entire subject of history for that matter, is often falsely viewed as a set of true and invariable facts. Only when this is understood, the readers can comprehend the meaning of the second primary evidence of his argument, which is the impact of this view. The second primary evidence is a quote from an African-Canadian student, Denise, who left school because the school curriculum, which has succumbed completely to the one- sided grand narrative, did not represent her racial background.[iv] The example explains that problematic assumptions create exclusions which lead students to disengage or simply feel detached from education. It is evident through Stanley’s thesis that the second example is intended to be compared to an average Canadian citizen and the level of his nationalism. Therefore, the consequence of grand narrative is the discouragement of participation to the Canadian society. The idea of nationalism will be further elaborated later. The two examples used by Stanley coherently prove his argument to be true without any limitations or gaps and so, the argument effectively supports his thesis. Similarly, his second argument, the exclusions as a result of multicultural add-ons is coherent like the first. It uses a secondary source of evidence of Canadian Museum of Civilization which displays European Progress as its main history and tokenizes everything else and of Black History Month which has become ghettoized due to becoming a multicultural add-on.[v] In Consequence, some Canadians are again, are considered as outsiders. Although Stanley’s first and second argument is coherent, there are gaps still present in the article.

            The solutions suggested by Stanley provoke a serious question. Since the problem raised by the article is the ‘inevitable’ exclusion due to public memory he eliminates the concept of public memory in his solutions. As a result, he proposes a rather an individualistic approach to the problem. He suggests that, the solution to this problem is learning about one’s own past first as a foundational knowledge and then allowing other point of views to interact with the personal view. People should also learn how their view intertwines with that of others. One should also enhance the sense of how the community that one lives in has been constructed by the people who has gone before.[vi] They fix the problem but create another. How can people be patriotic Canadian citizen when they are no concrete definition of what Canadian is? Since the study of history starts with “in my country” Canadians can never grow a sense of nationalism in Canada but rather “in their country”. Also, lack of nationalism cannot create a vibrant nation in a democratic society where participation and share of power is its goal in terms of social development. Thus the most important question raised by the article is how racialization can be solved and the vast number of imagined communities can be reduced - How can we make public memory more inclusive instead of eliminating it all together? A more suitable solution is ironically inspired by one of the primary sources of examples in the article used to explain the concept of imagined community. Few years ago in Lethbridge Alberta, the Toronto Blue Jays won the World Series for the first time. People went to the streets and said “we won! We won!”. They have not contributed to the victory but the Blue Jay’s victory that day became the nation’s victory.[vii] In the same way, history should not be an individualistic approach but it should be learning about a Canadian victory, in which every Canadian is part of Canada’s heroic feat, such as the World Wars. Therefore, Stanley’s argument, in which, “the inability of grand narrative frameworks to give adequate account of racism”[viii] is not a very important point. A secondary source of evidence that is to be discussed is Stanley’s narrative of the racist anti-Chinese history in Canada. His purpose for adding this particular evidence into the article is “to highlight the extent to which such a history cannot be contained within grand narratives’ celebration of European colonization.”.[ix] However, the racist history is not important to be included which invalidates his last argument and the examples that support it. It is not important because what matters is the racialized history of Canada, not the history of racism itself. Instead, the third argument and in turn, his solution would have been more convincing if it dealt with the inability of the grand narrative to include histories of Canadian victory in which all Canadians participate in.

            Timothy J. Stanley exposes the racialized history of Canada which is obscured and its consequences. He describes the exclusions that result from problematic and yet subtle assumptions of grand narrative, multicultural add-ons and the “inability of grand narrative frameworks to give an adequate account of racism”. The first two arguments illustrate competently the racial exclusions that exist in the Canadian grand narrative. However, eliminating the grand narrative is not the solution – making it more inclusive in order to enhance nationalism and participation is.

Art, Propaganda and Soviet "new man" (1920 - early 1930s)

After the October Revolution of 1917, hundreds of years of tsarist authority were overthrown. According to Jessica Bastian, amidst the confusion of anarchy, the Bolsheviks established their own legitimacy and credibility by extensive propaganda. These propagandas promoted “Homo Sovieticus” or the “New Soviet Man” who placed complete, unconditional faith in the Bolshevik Communist ideals. He would sacrifice his gain and would control his impulses to serve the “greater good”. From 1917 to 1930, reflecting the aim to transform the Russian spiritual culture, the propagandas illustrating Bolshevik ideas were avant-garde. However, the avant-garde art only catered to the tastes of the artistic elites. In order to inculcate all of Russia’s diverse groups with the faith in Bolsheviks, the propaganda efforts incorporated both religious elements and style and sentiment of the avant-garde. The amalgamation of religion with new soviet avant-garde art gave religious characteristics to the Bolshevik image and thus, gave Bolsheviks a legitimate spiritual authority. More specifically, propaganda from 1917 to 1930, or the first forms of new “opium of the people”, heralded Lenin as a new Christ and later, Stalin as his Apostle, and/or redefined “good” as productivism in order to transform Bolshevik ideals into axioms and thus, the Russian people, into Soviet “new man”.

The propaganda poster, “A Spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of Communism 1920” is a good example of how the government used religious sentiments to substantiate its ideals. It is a Productivist art made with a montage of Lenin, a factory, and two flags one of which is a Bolshevik flag and the other, a white flag with a picture of a sun. Lenin is pointing in the direction of the factory and the white flag while the platform on which he stands bears the slogan. The slogan, “A Spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of Communism” is a direct quotation from the first line of “Communist Manifesto” written by Marx and Engel in 1848. While the montage is certainly an avant-garde art and the message, a vanguard of socialist economy, this poster is not free from traditional, religious sentiments. Lenin is illustrated as a messenger or a prophet, pointing in the direction of industry and ultimately, promoting production as a purpose of soviet community. Also, the factory looks like a church because of its high smokestacks and intricate carvings. Thus, Lenin’s lead towards centralization of industry alludes to Jesus’ legacy, in which, he created the organisation of Christians, the church. In this way, Lenin is heralded as a new Christ and “good” is redefined as productivism even if it is dreadful. The purpose of the propaganda and its allusion to Russian Orthodox religion is to legitimatize War Communism despite its failures. From 1918 to 1921, War Communism replaced the system of state capitalism with a series of harsh economic measures. Although it served the Bolshevik ideals by centralizing the industry, eradicating private ownership and persecuting the peasants through requisitioning, its effects were disastrous: it caused severe industrial disruption, inflation and it was met with great peasant resistance.  Measuring the effectiveness of this propaganda poster by the aftermath of the discontent and the nature of the soviet posters, it can be concluded that the poster was not successful. First of all, because of the massive discontent, War Communism was replaced with New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921. The NEP strayed from the Bolshevik ideals because it combined socialism with capitalism. Secondly, although the propaganda posters in general were “central to defining the iconography of the period until 1927...”, it was not the most effective medium for advertizing Bolshevik policies because much of the Russian population was illiterate even until 1930. Therefore, “A Spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of Communism 1920” is a good example of the government’s attempt to stifle disagreements against War Communism and subsequently against Bolshevik ideals but it was not the most effective propaganda medium to create a new “Soviet Man”. Instead, one of the most successful propaganda in this era was film.

“October! – The Storming of the Winter Palace” directed by Sergei Eisenstein in 1920, propagandized the “rightful” Bolshevik victory and authority. The film inaccurately depicted the capture of the Winter Palace at 2am during the October Revolution of 1917. In the film, the workers were met with fierce resistance that was historically absent. The workers confiscated loots, arrested the provisional government and lauded the victory of the “Workers’ and Peasants’ Revolution which the Bolsheviks have always deemed necessary”. One of the most interesting scenes in the film was when a worker advanced into the empress’s room and found religious icons and paintings (approximately 2:45 to 3:15). He found a half-naked statue of the Virgin Mary and a painting of Jesus Christ before the ex-tsar Nicholas II, his wife and his only son. The Russian Orthodox religion was ridiculed with the ungraceful depiction of Mary. Also, the ex-tsar, who was believed to have divine right to rule over Russia before the February Revolution, was illustrated as an ordinary man by using Jesus Christ as a foil to the tsar’s pathetic self. Angered by the paintings and the icons, the worker burned the empress’s room and metaphorically, he obliterated the tsarist authority along with the religious one. After the Provisional Government was overthrown and the Bolsheviks took power, Lenin was welcomed to the altar with applause and the congregation of people were excited by his words and policies. Even a man who fell asleep in the congregation woke up and was enlightened. The burning of the traditional religious and tsarist icons and Lenin’s ascension to the altar and his authority over the congregation, illustrated Lenin as the new Christ and the dawn of new faith or opium. As it is evident in the metaphorical scenes and the secular milieu of the film, Eisenstein’s film was aligned with the Bolshevik policy in January 1918, Decree on Separation of Church and State that sought to break the hold of clergy and undermine the religious faith of peasants. Eisenstein’s film was very successful because of the montage of brief scenes that made complicated stories simple to understand and influenced the audience in a way that art and literature never could. Also, the inaccurate account of history added to the drama and moved people to believe in “Bolshevik victory” because, film itself “like photomontage, presented an illusion of reality”. Therefore, “October – The Storming of the Winter Palace” by Eisenstein in 1920 was one of the successful propagandas that helped to create a Soviet “new man”. On the other hand, other propagandas were more explicit in their anti-religious messages and their attempt to promote the Soviet “new man”.

A propaganda poster, “Beware! Religion is poison for the mind. 1920” explicitly discouraged religious beliefs and promoted the Soviet “new man”. In the poster, a little girl is dragged by a witch-like old woman by her braids towards the “religious and capitalist” setting with a crooked crucifix, a fat capitalist man, crows and graves. On the other side of the “religious and capitalist” setting is the “communist” background with straight, high buildings, a man blowing a trumpet and a plane. Not only is the religion and capitalism grouped together as archaic and corrupted, but they are compared with the “communist” setting that is innovative and upright in architecture and, as it is implied, in spiritual culture. Thus, the most obvious message that the poster promotes is that religion and capitalism is evil while communism is good. However, the most important message can be found in the extent the “communist” setting emulates the “religious and capitalist” setting: The plane soars as high as the crucifix pierces the sky, the “communist” building is built as high as the churches and while the bell is the instrument of the church, the trumpet is the instrument of a communist. As Lenin replaced Jesus Christ in “October! – The Storming of the Winter Palace” directed by Sergei Eisenstein in 1920, the spiritual culture of the Orthodox Church is directly replaced and emulated by that created by the Bolsheviks. The purpose of this propaganda poster is the same with that of Eisenstein’s film. It seeks to steal the legitimacy of religious icons for that of Bolsheviks. In the process of doing so, in the poster, the “communist” society that embodies innovation and production is defined as “good”. The propaganda poster of course is not as effective as the cinema whose drama can influence the emotions of its audience. However, it has played a better role in visualizing the iconography of good and bad. Therefore, “Beware! Religion is poison for the mind. 1920” was a more explicit anti-religion propaganda that sought to create the Soviet “new man”.

Propaganda targeting children were in the form of children’s books. Through the children’s books, the government dedicated itself to vospitanie, a Russian word for teaching, more specifically, upbringing and molding of personality. The vospitanie of children into Soviet “new man” was even emphasized publicly. “As early as 1918, the newspaper Pravda (the truth), the official voice of the Russian Communist Party, proclaimed, ‘The children’s book as a major weapon for education must receive widest possible distribution’”. An example of one of this major weapon is a children’s book called “Fishing 1930” by B. Inozemtsev. I. “Fishing” is a series of illustrations of fishery workers working together to bring in the catch, prepare it and send if off to the cooperative to feed the nation. In a particular page of the book, a lone fisherman and a group of fishermen are illustrated. The lone fisherman does not catch many fish but the group of fishermen do in order to feed the nation. Collectivism and productivism is strongly emphasized in this page not only through the story itself but also through the drawing. The people drawn in this children book do not have a face and in fact, there are not much distinct characteristics that differ one from the other. The artist had used an avant-garde style purposely in order to represent people as a class rather than an individual. The class will work together to make greater yield of fish and feed the nation. Ironically, despite the government’s dedication to productivist avant-garde art and its desire to eradicate all religious faith in young peoples, “Fishing” also contains some subtle religious sentiments. The class working together to feed the nation is like Jesus’s disciples who have been fishers and have been commissioned by Jesus with words, “I will make you fishers of men”. The class, like the disciples, have a holy mission to feed everyone. The only difference is that for the class this is achieved through collectivization and productivism not religious faith. Unfortunately for the Bolsheviks, this message was not effectively communicated to the targeted audience. Although the government understood very well the potency of vospitanie of children, it had overlooked the poor state of Russia. Not only was a large portion of the Russian population illiterate but there were overwhelming number of bespirzornye. Bespirzornye were orphans and abandoned children who lost their parents during the series of revolutions. In 1920, “Contemporaries estimated their number at between 7 million and 9 million, three quarters of them under age thirteen and three quarters of them children of workers and peasants.” Since bespirazornye were not even granted the most basic parental care, and even many children with parents were illiterate, the government had failed to choose the most effective medium to target children. Therefore, although children’s books like “Fishing” dedicated itself to vospitanie of children into the Soviet “new man”, the medium failed to do so because of the poor conditions in Russia from 1917 to and after 1930.

After Lenin’s death, Stalin developed a cult of personality of Lenin in order to elevate his image. In many propaganda posters, Stalin was illustrated alongside of Lenin, who, as it has been elaborated previously was heralded as a new Christ after the October Revolution of 1917. In these posters, Stalin appeared like Lenin’s closest confidant, political ally and the medium which Lenin’s spirit can work through. In doing so, “Stalin positioned himself to become the Big Brother [of the revolution]”. In late 1920s, in the advertisement of Bolshevik policies, like the Five Year Plan 1928, Stalin was illustrated behind Lenin, so that he is not too forefront and is not met with disfavor of the population. Nevertheless, Stalin was omnipresent. Unlike Lenin who wanted to modest profiles, “Stalin wanted just the opposite – though, he too, purported to be modest”. The propaganda poster, “Socialist Construction Under Lenin’s Banner 1930” is a good example of how Stalin used Lenin’s iconography in order to develop his own. In the poster, the faces of Lenin and Stalin loom over a montage of construction sites. Stalin’s face is behind Lenin’s but Lenin’s face is slightly transparent. Lenin’s transparency gives him a spirit-like character watching over Russia and working through Stalin. Lenin is then, Jesus in spirit and Stalin, his Apostle continuing his work. The purpose of this poster was to take credit for the successes of the Five Year Plan 1928 in the cities. The Five Year Plan 1928 was a policy that collectivized the peasants into a state run farm in order to facilitate the process of rapid industrialization. At the exorbitant cost of millions of lives of the peasants, from 1928 to 1940, the Five Year Plan 1928 helped to make USSR a leading industrial nation. The poster for this type of propaganda was effective because posters established iconography; it best presented the milieu of the era rather than an event or a policy. In the aftermath, Stalin was able to add economic achievement to his list of accomplishments. Eventually after World War II and his military feat, he was able to stand alone in propagandas. Another example of this type of productivist propaganda is “Let’s build a fleet of airships in Lenin’s name 1931” by Georgii Kibardin. In this poster, Kibardin combined drawing and photography in order to illustrate the air fleets invading the sky, Lenin above the masses of cheering people, commissioning these air fleets and piercing radio tower. The largest air fleet read, “Lenin” and the second largest, “Stalin.” Again, “Stalin” is in close proximity of “Lenin” and it is behind the “Lenin” fleet. Also the skies that are often associated with heaven, God’s dome are invaded with air fleets of Lenin and Stalin. It is as if it is Stalin and Lenin that looks over the people of Russia from the sky instead of God. Therefore, posters like “Socialist Construction Under Lenin’s Banner 1930” and “Let’s build a fleet of airships in Lenin’s name 1931” successfully created a cult of personality with religious sentiments that helped create the Soviet “new man”.

Therefore, propaganda from 1917 to 1930, or the first forms of new “opium of the people”, heralded Lenin as a new Christ and later, Stalin as his Apostle, and/or redefined “good” as productivism in order to transform Bolshevik ideals into axioms and thus the Russian people into Soviet “new man”. First of all, “A Spectre is haunting Europe – A Spectre of Communism 1920” attempts to create a Soviet “new man” by heralding Lenin as the new Christ and promoting productivism of War Communism. Secondly, Eisenstein’s film, ““October! – The Storming of the Winter Palace” heralded Lenin as a new Christ to replace the Orthodox religion. On the other hand, “Beware! Religion is poison for the mind. 1920” did so by promoting productivism as “good”. Thirdly, B. Inozemtsev. I.’s  “Fishing” attempted to “mold” the children into Soviet “new man” by promoting productivism. Fourthly, Stalin creates a Soviet “new man” by positioning himself as the Apostle of Lenin in propaganda posters such as “Socialist Construction Under Lenin’s Banner 1930” and “Let’s build a fleet of airships in Lenin’s name 1931”. The spiritual culture of Soviet “new man” was political opium that manipulated people to believe that Bolshevik policies and ideals were indisputable and must be obeyed like God’s Word.

 

Do we need emotions in our pursuit of knowledge?

Many people distrust their emotions in their pursuit of knowledge because they believe that emotions interfere with clear, accurate and neutral observation. The dogma that emotions must be suppressed and silenced for any reliable observation and that reliable observation is studying physical entities reflects our society’s obsession with philosophical standpoints often associated with quantifiable and definitional science. One of the two these philosophical viewpoints establishes reality as something that can be experienced with your senses and the other as an unchanging, clear idea that can be looked at with an undisturbed mental gaze. Often, without conceptualizing these philosophical standpoints, people argue that the access to real knowledge is always limited by emotion and achieved only through physical experience. However, this argument can be nullified with spontaneous performances such as empathy, which is an intellectual identification with feelings, thoughts or the attitudes of a person or society. On the other hand, arguing that emotions never distort objective knowledge is another opinion that can be heavily criticized. The difference between these two arguments is their definition of “emotion”. While one characterizes it as totally unreliable, the other, totally reliable. The contrasting confidences arise perhaps from personal, varying levels of emotional engagement. We fail to use our emotions properly to further our knowledge, if we fail to be empathetic, if we suppress our emotions and do not take the initiative to analyze them and transpose their dynamics onto others. Hence, my claim is that we can know to trust our emotions in the pursuit of knowledge only if we engage them. Two areas of knowledge, History and Ethics will be used to attempt to illustrate emotions both as a hindrance when emotion is not used engagingly and a tool when it is. 

A well engaged emotion is required to learn about and contribute to history because people must be empathetic to the situations in the past in order to acquire a real understanding about what happened. If we understand our own cognitive and non-cognitive emotions, we will be able to understand the thoughts, reasons or attitudes behind the course of events in history. The same could be said for the construction of one of the most appalling milieu in history, “Hitler’s Germany”. The fact that Hitler was supported by most of non-Jewish Germans despite his injustices such as massive massacres and his advocacy for war is incomprehensible in our modern paradigm. It can be only understood by studying and engaging our emotions to the milieu of that German society. Germany after World War I was a “setting of anti-Communist paranoia, bitterness over the Treaty of Versailles and growing inflation” (Pauley). Although the level and the omnipotence of fear and desperation from the economic and political disasters after World War I is exponentially greater, I can at best relate it to my experience of working on a hopeless group project in order to understand it. In both cases, amidst the fear of failure, the members gravitated towards a person with a solution and passion because the Germans as well as the members of my group felt a non-cognitive emotion of relief around this person. In 1932, while other parties within the Weimar Republic were practical and soft spoken, Hitler was passionate and semi-religious in his speeches. He proposed to renew German unity, pride and greatness but he never specified the plan in practical terms. Nevertheless, “He appeared to fulfill the need for heroic leadership at a time when the nation desperately wanted some”. Also, Hitler’s brutal purges against the Jews, were not heavily criticized because the mutual attitude of anti-Semitism all across Europe justified it. To relate, I can remember an instance, in which, a member of my group was “parasitic”. He did not participate in the project and was to be rewarded with the same mark as the members who worked very hard. At first, there was a personal, animalistic desire to alienate him within the group because I felt cheated and angry. However, at this stage, I judged that it was a wrong thing to do and did not put it into action. Although in this situation, alienating the member would always be the wrong thing to do, as the general concordance of frustration was exposed, there was a tendency to do so in the group even if it was the wrong thing to do. Now that the group was more exclusive, I thought I should work harder for the group not only because I was afraid I would be alienated but I also felt privileged to be accepted. Similarly, the Germans felt more engaged in the movement during Hitler’s purges. Although they were afraid of being targeted, they were also drawn to the non-cognitive feeling of being part of an exclusive movement that made them into “Aryans”. Since my emotions from my experiences can be transposed into Hitler’s Germany in order to better understand the history, it can be concluded that a well engaged emotion is required in pursuit of knowledge. However, when emotions are poorly engaged, it can have disastrous effects.

In contrast of well engaged emotions as a tool, uncontrolled emotion can hinder pursuit of knowledge. Uncontrolled emotions can create bias in one’s observation of a society in history. For example, the group of victims of Hitler’s purges like the Jews might have a more difficult time in transposing their emotions to further their knowledge about how “Hitler’s Germany” was created. If their emotions are uncontrolled and aggressive, in their anger, they may decide to conclude the Germans as “evil” and forever hate the population. Not only can emotions influence learning in the area of history but also in ethics as well.

A well engaged emotion is an important part of pursuing knowledge especially that of ethics because the concept of good and bad changes in each situation. Hence, we must be constantly empathetic to the effects of our actions when deciding what is right and wrong. This is true also in the case of lying. A lie is an intentional false statement made by a person who knows the whole truth. Although lying is taught as a bad conduct dogmatically from childhood, the ethics of lying is ambiguous because it is dependent on a situation. In each situation, we must consider the consequences of our lies for ourselves and for the receiver and the emotions of the receiver simultaneously to know if lying is good or bad. For example, my friend had a terrible hair cut but she did not know it. She asked me if I liked her new hair. In this situation I judged that lying is good and said that I liked her new hair style. Of course, before lying, I considered the consequences of the lie. My friend thinking that I like her hair style is not bad because it would make her feel confident for a day and this false knowledge would not make her upset at or give her a reason to hurt someone. However, if I had told the truth, my friend would be upset at her hair until it grew back to the way it was. This means that she would worry about her hair for at least two months, which would possibly distract her from her studies and social life and prevent her from fulfilling her purpose as a student. I know this by transposing my emotions from an experience of getting a new hairstyle to my friend’s situation. Also, no one, except for me, knows my true answer to my friend’s question and thus, unless I confess I have lied, I would never be blamed for falsehood. This was a case, in which, the reason and emotion was aligned. There are other cases where this is not so.

While emotion can help us make the right choices by considering others’ feelings when making a decision, it can also distract us. For example, another friend of mine confessed to me that she has been smoking cigarettes since grade nine because her life seemed overwhelming. According to the natural course of the conversation, I would have to either accept or discourage this activity. The question was, “Is accepting this activity a responsible thing to do?” I wanted to accept this activity despite the detrimental health effects and the probable alienation from my friends because I can relate to my desire to be accepted and the loneliness when rejected. However, this would prevent me from making the right choice of discouraging it. The harmful effects would prevent her from fulfilling her purpose as a friend and a student. Perhaps, it was not that I had to discourage my emotions to know what the right thing to do was. Maybe it was the sense of regret as well that I have related to.

In summary, I have explored cases in which emotion can help or distract us from the pursuit of knowledge. First of all, I have made an attempt to understand the milieu of “Hitler’s Germany” by transposing the German people’s decisions with the emotions that I feel every day. Then, I used the same example to suggest where prejudice would hinder the same exercise I have done.  Secondly, I have made an example of ethics from my daily life; one that is aligned with reason and emotion while the other was not. However, the sophistication of the knowledge issue has not been totally explored because I did not explore all instances. Nevertheless, from my personal exploration displayed in the essay, I suggest that we can know to trust our emotions in the pursuit of knowledge only if we engage them.